A gezeira shava (comparison of two different sections where the same words are used) is made between the section of vows and the section dealing with one who slaughters an animal for a sacrifice outside of the Temple/Tabernacle from the words ‘ze hadavar’ that appear in both sections. From the comparison, it is derived that vows can be annulled with three regular people (not judges) and that if one slaughters an animal that was sanctified, one can annul the sanctification and thus avoid the karet punishment. Beit Shamai doesn’t hold by the rule about annulling sanctification so they conclude that he must not hold by the gezeira shava. If so, what do they learn from ‘ze hadavar’ in each of these sections? From where do they derive the law that three regular people can annul vows? It is derived from the verses of the holidays – as the holidays are differentiated from vows – holidays require judges to determine their sanctity (by declaring the new moon) while vows do not. Rabbi Chanina brings an exception to the rule that the husband must cancel his wife’s vows on the day he hears them. If he wants to rebuke her first for vowing, he can push off the nullification for up to ten days. Rava raises a difficulty with Rabbi Chanina’s statement from the Tosefta, but it is resolved.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
Nedarim 78
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — חָכָם מַתִּיר, וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — בַּעַל מֵפֵר וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר. שֶׁיָּכוֹל: וּמָה בַּעַל שֶׁאֵין מַתִּיר — מֵפֵר, חָכָם שֶׁמַּתִּיר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמֵּפֵר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — בַּעַל מֵפֵר, וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר.
“This is the thing” (Numbers 30:2), to teach that the husband nullifies vows and a halakhic authority dissolves vows, but a husband does not dissolve them. It is taught in another baraita: The phrase “this is the thing” teaches that a husband nullifies vows but a halakhic authority does not nullify vows. As, one might have thought: Just as a husband, who cannot dissolve vows, nevertheless nullifies them, so too with regard to a halakhic authority, who can dissolve vows, is it not logical that he should also nullify them? Therefore, the verse states: “This is the thing,” to teach us that a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.
נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ. מָה בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ — אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַף פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים — אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמָה כָּאן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת — אַף לְהַלָּן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת.
It is taught in a baraita: It is stated here, with regard to vows: “This is the thing,” and it is stated elsewhere: “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the thing which the Lord has commanded, saying” (Leviticus 17:2), in the verse introducing the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. Just as with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, the verse is directed to Aaron and his sons and all of Israel, so too, the portion in the Torah about vows is directed to Aaron and his sons and all of Israel. And just as here, with regard to vows, the verse states: “And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel” (Numbers 30:2), so too, there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.
בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: לְהַכְשִׁיר שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. וְהָא ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.
The Gemara asks: With regard to the Torah portion on vows, for what halakha is the verbal analogy between it and slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard taught? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: The verbal analogy is the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it written: “The heads of the tribes”? Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan: From the phrase “the heads of the tribes” the Sages derive that vows can also be dissolved by a single expert.
רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
The Gemara then asks the corresponding question about the other passage. The verbal analogy connects “the heads of the tribes” to offerings slaughtered outside of the Temple courtyard. For what halakha is this connection made? Rav Sheshet said: This connection is made in order to say that there is a concept of requesting dissolution of consecration of consecrated property.
לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּאָמַר אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ דִּכְתִיב בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֵית לְהוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה.
The Gemara asks: According to Beit Shammai, who say that there is no possibility of requesting from a halakhic authority to cancel the consecration of consecrated property, the treatment of the verse “the heads of the tribes” as if it were written also about offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard serves to teach what halakha? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai do not have a tradition of interpreting the verses in accordance with this verbal analogy.
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים לְמַאי כְּתִיב? לוֹמַר: חָכָם מַתִּיר וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר, בַּעַל מֵפֵר וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר.
The Gemara asks: Since Beit Shammai do not use this verbal analogy, for what purpose is “this is the thing,” in the portion on vows, written? The Gemara answers: It is written to say that only a halakhic authority dissolves vows, but a husband does not dissolve them; a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי כְּתִיב? לוֹמַר: עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה חַיָּיב, וְאֵין חַיָּיב עַל הַמְּלִיקָה.
According to Beit Shammai, for what purpose is written the phrase “this is the thing,” found in the portion on offerings slaughtered outside of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: It is written to say that one is liable for slaughtering outside, but one is not liable for pinching the neck of a bird-offering outside the Temple courtyard, although that is the way it would be killed if it were a valid offering in the Temple.
אֶלָּא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, לְהַכְשִׁיר שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת מְנָלַן? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִדְּרַב אַסִּי בַּר נָתָן.
The Gemara asks: But according to Beit Shammai, who do not accept the verbal analogy between vows and the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard, from where do we derive the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai derive it from the explanation given to Rav Asi bar Natan.
דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״מוֹעֲדֵי״ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית עִמָּהֶן. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: ״מוֹעֲדֵי״ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים עִמָּהֶן.
This is as it is written: “And Moses declared the Festivals of the Lord to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 23:44). And it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The Festivals are stated, but Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, is not stated with them. Ben Azzai says: The Festivals are stated, but the portion on vows is not stated with them.
רַב אַסִּי בַּר נָתָן קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ הָא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲתָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת וְלָא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ, אֲתָא אַבָּתְרֵיהּ לְמָחוֹזָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית עִמָּהֶן?
The Gemara relates that Rav Asi bar Natan had a difficulty with this baraita. He came to Neharde’a to ask about it before Rav Sheshet, but he did not find him there. He pursued him to Meḥoza and said to him: How can the baraita say that the Festivals of the Lord were stated, but Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, was not stated with them?
וְהָא כְּתִיב שַׁבָּת עִמָּהֶן! וְתוּ: מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים עִמָּהֶן? וְהָא מִסִּיטְרָא כְּתִיבָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָתָנֵי:
But Shabbat is written with them in the portions of the Torah about the Festivals (Leviticus 23:3; Numbers 28:9–10). And furthermore, can it be said that the Festivals of the Lord are stated, but the portion on vows (Numbers, chapter 30) is not stated with them? Isn’t it next to one of the portions in the Torah detailing the halakhot of the Festivals (Numbers, chapters 28–29)? Rav Sheshet said to him: This is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement in the baraita is teaching:
מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ צְרִיכִין קִידּוּשׁ בֵּית דִּין, שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית אֵין צְרִיכָה קִידּוּשׁ בֵּית דִּין.
The Festivals of the Lord require sanctification by the court, as the Festival dates are established by the court’s determination of the New Moon, whereas Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, does not require sanctification by the court. Shabbat is sanctified every week independent of any court decision.
מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ צְרִיכִין מוּמְחֶה, וְאֵין פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים צְרִיכִין מוּמְחֶה, אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית דִּין הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
As for ben Azzai’s statement, it should be understood as follows: The Festivals of the Lord require an expert, as the start of the month, which is dependent upon the appearance of the new moon, which in turn determines the Festivals, can be established only by a court composed of experts. But the portion on vows does not require an expert, i.e., vows can be dissolved even by a court of laymen. This explanation of the baraita given to Rav Asi bar Natan also serves to explain Beit Shammai’s source for the halakha that three laymen can dissolve vows.
וְהָא בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in the portion on vows the phrase “the heads of the tribes” (Numbers 30:2) is written. How, then, can it be said that vows can be dissolved by laymen? Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan: From “the heads of the tribes,” the Sages derive that vows can be dissolved by a single expert by himself, but three laymen also have that ability.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַשּׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְמֵיקַט, מֵפֵר אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. מֵתִיב רָבָא: אֵימָתַי אָמְרוּ מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב — בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְהֵפֵר וּמֵת בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם. אֲבָל שָׁמַע וְקִיֵּים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק וּמֵת בַּיּוֹם שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו — אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.
§ Rabbi Ḥanina says: A husband who is silent and does not formally nullify his wife’s vow in order to annoy [lemeikat] her, but intends to nullify it later, can nullify it even from now until ten days later. Rava raised an objection to this from a baraita: When did they say that if the husband of a betrothed young woman dies, the authority to nullify the woman’s vows reverts to the father? The authority reverts to the father when the husband did not hear of her vow, or when he heard and was silent, or when he heard and nullified it and died on the same day. But if he heard and ratified it, or if he heard and was silent and died on the following day, he, the father, cannot nullify the vow.
מַאי לָאו, בְּשׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְמֵיקַט? לֹא, בְּשׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְקַיֵּים. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ אוֹ שָׁמַע וְקִיֵּים! אֶלָּא, בְּשׁוֹתֵק סְתָם.
What, is the phrase: Heard and was silent, not referring even to one who is silent in order to annoy her, and nevertheless nullification is only possible that day, contradicting the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to one who is silent in order to sustain the vow. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as: Or he heard and ratified, mentioned earlier in the baraita. Rather, the baraita is referring to one who is silent without any specific intent, as opposed to the husband who is silent in order to annoy his wife, whose intent is to nullify the vow.
מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: חוֹמֶר בְּהָקֵם מִבְּהָפֵר, וּבְהָפֵר מִבְּהָקֵם. חוֹמֶר בְּהָקֵם —
Rav Ḥisda raised an objection from a different baraita: In some ways the halakha is more stringent in ratification than in nullification, and in other ways it is more stringent in nullification than in ratification. The stringency in ratification of vows is
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Berlin, Germany
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Nedarim 78
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — חָכָם מַתִּיר, וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — בַּעַל מֵפֵר וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר. שֶׁיָּכוֹל: וּמָה בַּעַל שֶׁאֵין מַתִּיר — מֵפֵר, חָכָם שֶׁמַּתִּיר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמֵּפֵר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — בַּעַל מֵפֵר, וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר.
“This is the thing” (Numbers 30:2), to teach that the husband nullifies vows and a halakhic authority dissolves vows, but a husband does not dissolve them. It is taught in another baraita: The phrase “this is the thing” teaches that a husband nullifies vows but a halakhic authority does not nullify vows. As, one might have thought: Just as a husband, who cannot dissolve vows, nevertheless nullifies them, so too with regard to a halakhic authority, who can dissolve vows, is it not logical that he should also nullify them? Therefore, the verse states: “This is the thing,” to teach us that a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.
נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ. מָה בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ — אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַף פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים — אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמָה כָּאן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת — אַף לְהַלָּן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת.
It is taught in a baraita: It is stated here, with regard to vows: “This is the thing,” and it is stated elsewhere: “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the thing which the Lord has commanded, saying” (Leviticus 17:2), in the verse introducing the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. Just as with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, the verse is directed to Aaron and his sons and all of Israel, so too, the portion in the Torah about vows is directed to Aaron and his sons and all of Israel. And just as here, with regard to vows, the verse states: “And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel” (Numbers 30:2), so too, there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.
בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: לְהַכְשִׁיר שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. וְהָא ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.
The Gemara asks: With regard to the Torah portion on vows, for what halakha is the verbal analogy between it and slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard taught? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: The verbal analogy is the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it written: “The heads of the tribes”? Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan: From the phrase “the heads of the tribes” the Sages derive that vows can also be dissolved by a single expert.
רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
The Gemara then asks the corresponding question about the other passage. The verbal analogy connects “the heads of the tribes” to offerings slaughtered outside of the Temple courtyard. For what halakha is this connection made? Rav Sheshet said: This connection is made in order to say that there is a concept of requesting dissolution of consecration of consecrated property.
לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּאָמַר אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ דִּכְתִיב בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֵית לְהוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה.
The Gemara asks: According to Beit Shammai, who say that there is no possibility of requesting from a halakhic authority to cancel the consecration of consecrated property, the treatment of the verse “the heads of the tribes” as if it were written also about offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard serves to teach what halakha? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai do not have a tradition of interpreting the verses in accordance with this verbal analogy.
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים לְמַאי כְּתִיב? לוֹמַר: חָכָם מַתִּיר וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר, בַּעַל מֵפֵר וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר.
The Gemara asks: Since Beit Shammai do not use this verbal analogy, for what purpose is “this is the thing,” in the portion on vows, written? The Gemara answers: It is written to say that only a halakhic authority dissolves vows, but a husband does not dissolve them; a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי כְּתִיב? לוֹמַר: עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה חַיָּיב, וְאֵין חַיָּיב עַל הַמְּלִיקָה.
According to Beit Shammai, for what purpose is written the phrase “this is the thing,” found in the portion on offerings slaughtered outside of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: It is written to say that one is liable for slaughtering outside, but one is not liable for pinching the neck of a bird-offering outside the Temple courtyard, although that is the way it would be killed if it were a valid offering in the Temple.
אֶלָּא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, לְהַכְשִׁיר שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת מְנָלַן? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִדְּרַב אַסִּי בַּר נָתָן.
The Gemara asks: But according to Beit Shammai, who do not accept the verbal analogy between vows and the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard, from where do we derive the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai derive it from the explanation given to Rav Asi bar Natan.
דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״מוֹעֲדֵי״ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית עִמָּהֶן. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: ״מוֹעֲדֵי״ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים עִמָּהֶן.
This is as it is written: “And Moses declared the Festivals of the Lord to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 23:44). And it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The Festivals are stated, but Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, is not stated with them. Ben Azzai says: The Festivals are stated, but the portion on vows is not stated with them.
רַב אַסִּי בַּר נָתָן קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ הָא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲתָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת וְלָא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ, אֲתָא אַבָּתְרֵיהּ לְמָחוֹזָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית עִמָּהֶן?
The Gemara relates that Rav Asi bar Natan had a difficulty with this baraita. He came to Neharde’a to ask about it before Rav Sheshet, but he did not find him there. He pursued him to Meḥoza and said to him: How can the baraita say that the Festivals of the Lord were stated, but Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, was not stated with them?
וְהָא כְּתִיב שַׁבָּת עִמָּהֶן! וְתוּ: מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים עִמָּהֶן? וְהָא מִסִּיטְרָא כְּתִיבָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָתָנֵי:
But Shabbat is written with them in the portions of the Torah about the Festivals (Leviticus 23:3; Numbers 28:9–10). And furthermore, can it be said that the Festivals of the Lord are stated, but the portion on vows (Numbers, chapter 30) is not stated with them? Isn’t it next to one of the portions in the Torah detailing the halakhot of the Festivals (Numbers, chapters 28–29)? Rav Sheshet said to him: This is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement in the baraita is teaching:
מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ צְרִיכִין קִידּוּשׁ בֵּית דִּין, שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית אֵין צְרִיכָה קִידּוּשׁ בֵּית דִּין.
The Festivals of the Lord require sanctification by the court, as the Festival dates are established by the court’s determination of the New Moon, whereas Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, does not require sanctification by the court. Shabbat is sanctified every week independent of any court decision.
מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ צְרִיכִין מוּמְחֶה, וְאֵין פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים צְרִיכִין מוּמְחֶה, אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית דִּין הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
As for ben Azzai’s statement, it should be understood as follows: The Festivals of the Lord require an expert, as the start of the month, which is dependent upon the appearance of the new moon, which in turn determines the Festivals, can be established only by a court composed of experts. But the portion on vows does not require an expert, i.e., vows can be dissolved even by a court of laymen. This explanation of the baraita given to Rav Asi bar Natan also serves to explain Beit Shammai’s source for the halakha that three laymen can dissolve vows.
וְהָא בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in the portion on vows the phrase “the heads of the tribes” (Numbers 30:2) is written. How, then, can it be said that vows can be dissolved by laymen? Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan: From “the heads of the tribes,” the Sages derive that vows can be dissolved by a single expert by himself, but three laymen also have that ability.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַשּׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְמֵיקַט, מֵפֵר אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. מֵתִיב רָבָא: אֵימָתַי אָמְרוּ מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב — בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְהֵפֵר וּמֵת בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם. אֲבָל שָׁמַע וְקִיֵּים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק וּמֵת בַּיּוֹם שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו — אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.
§ Rabbi Ḥanina says: A husband who is silent and does not formally nullify his wife’s vow in order to annoy [lemeikat] her, but intends to nullify it later, can nullify it even from now until ten days later. Rava raised an objection to this from a baraita: When did they say that if the husband of a betrothed young woman dies, the authority to nullify the woman’s vows reverts to the father? The authority reverts to the father when the husband did not hear of her vow, or when he heard and was silent, or when he heard and nullified it and died on the same day. But if he heard and ratified it, or if he heard and was silent and died on the following day, he, the father, cannot nullify the vow.
מַאי לָאו, בְּשׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְמֵיקַט? לֹא, בְּשׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְקַיֵּים. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ אוֹ שָׁמַע וְקִיֵּים! אֶלָּא, בְּשׁוֹתֵק סְתָם.
What, is the phrase: Heard and was silent, not referring even to one who is silent in order to annoy her, and nevertheless nullification is only possible that day, contradicting the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to one who is silent in order to sustain the vow. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as: Or he heard and ratified, mentioned earlier in the baraita. Rather, the baraita is referring to one who is silent without any specific intent, as opposed to the husband who is silent in order to annoy his wife, whose intent is to nullify the vow.
מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: חוֹמֶר בְּהָקֵם מִבְּהָפֵר, וּבְהָפֵר מִבְּהָקֵם. חוֹמֶר בְּהָקֵם —
Rav Ḥisda raised an objection from a different baraita: In some ways the halakha is more stringent in ratification than in nullification, and in other ways it is more stringent in nullification than in ratification. The stringency in ratification of vows is
